I really hope this doesn't sound arrogant, I only say this because I've been educated on it, but as a degreed molecular biologist who has sequenced, replicated, and done professional research regarding DNA I will say that my view is that life was created and evolved. I believe that God created DNA, life, and the universe but that it went through the modern process of evolution due to the evidence behind it. I don't think that this happened by random chance, but rather by a process that was set up and took its course over millions of years.

I've also gone ahead and moved this to Extended Discussions where it may be more appropriate.

I don't think you're being arrogant. Belief is fine. Faith is fine. Bible-thumping is not, and you did not do that.

"The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."

-Steven Hawking

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

Interpreting that as meaning designed is completely missing the point. Its conditional probability, what is the probability of the universe having the correct attributes for live given live exists? Clearly its 1, since live exists. If it were changed then live wouldn't exist and thus we wouldn't be able to measure it thus any universe in which live can exist must be 'fine tuned' for it.

Before making an argument, you should learn the mathematical/statistical concepts before you try to use them. This is a great example of bad statistics. You have one sample, you don't know the number of trials and therefore, cannot make assumptions on the conditional probability of an event. This also applies to the law of large numbers which deals with extremely large numbers of trials. We don't know the number of trials only that one succeeded. Also, this is used for prediction and not hindsight. You can NOT say it happened X out of Y times in the past therefore it's probability is X/Y. That is only your sample space and may or may not be representative.

More over if you use that point to indicate there must be a designer then clearly conditions must have been designed precisely so that the designer could be designed, because its quite clear that designers find it substantially easier to design things less complicated than themselves. EG despite our sincerest efforts for many years we've made effectively zero process modelling the brain, yet can easily manufacture substantially less complex things such as computers, ergo it would take a more complex designer, to design a less complex designer, to design the universe.

This sort of logic is a clear and direct failing of religion. Its panicked attempts to claw to the edges of a chasm as it falls into the pit of death, rather than accepting religious scripts for what they are (outdated legal structures used to subdue, tax and control people) we cling to them desperately. People use the 'oh well that bits a 'metaphor'' for anything thats clearly wrong and use this other stupid 'liquid god' idea of just using it to fill in the massive holes in their arguments and try to explain current scientific problems by coating it with 'god'. Occams razor, if your solution adds nothing to knowledge yet has massive assumptions then it is clearly wrong in every way. If only we could stop indoctrinating kids from a young age and spread science and proper education throughout the religious infested 3rd word maybe we could get somewhere.

Just as the less complex ant cannot comprehend the more complex humans, one should not try to make a logical argument about the logic behind a being that is more complex then oneself. An ant dies because you burn it with a magnifying glass and the ant has no concept of photons. Your argument proves nothing.

I won't even tackle that next bit, because it is all opinion. But I would encourage you to do some history research, because those "outdated legal structures" don't function the way you think they do. They also do just as much subduing and controlling as any government anyway (my opinion too).

Note: I full expect all people who believe in these sorts of ideas to completely ignore my entirely reasonable and well argued point, rarely have I ever seen loonies like that get into arguments short of them slinging mud at one side and the other doing basically nothing back since it would be a total waste of time. It would seem rationality is beyond these people, but I guess its ok cause their imaginary friend told them to do it :rolleyes:

I think I have already addressed your "reasonable and well argued point".

Intelligent Design or Grand Design may have allowed all the parameters for flaws. What is a genetic strain without shortcomings to overcome and change?

Whats a computer that doesnt randomly shut down and delete all its data? A bad computer from an incompetent manufacturer and a stupid designer. If thats what your 'god' is like I see no reason to worship it

Now we see the real reason you don't want to believe in intelligent design. "If that's what your 'god' is like..." is an argument based in anger not logic. It's something parents tell their children.... "If you are <insert offending action> like that I'm going to..." which is something done in anger or at the very least irritation.

As far as flaws go, THAT is a truly interesting topic. A question that I relish because it has no real answer. Why am I dyslexic? Why do I suck at driving manual? I will say this: even the most brilliantly designed machine is subject to flaws. Computer processors, which should work flawlessly, generate occasional errors. There is something in the world we live in that prevents perfection, and actively works against it. In my opinion, that thing is the opposite of intelligent design - a chaos that fights against the order, if you will.

kreycowrote:
"The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."

-Steven Hawking

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

Interpreting that as meaning designed is completely missing the point. Its conditional probability, what is the probability of the universe having the correct attributes for live given live exists? Clearly its 1, since live exists. If it were changed then live wouldn't exist and thus we wouldn't be able to measure it thus any universe in which live can exist must be 'fine tuned' for it.

Before making an argument, you should learn the mathematical/statistical concepts before you try to use them. This is a great example of bad statistics. You have one sample, you don't know the number of trials and therefore, cannot make assumptions on the conditional probability of an event. This also applies to the law of large numbers which deals with extremely large numbers of trials. We don't know the number of trials only that one succeeded. Also, this is used for prediction and not hindsight. You can NOT say it happened X out of Y times in the past therefore it's probability is X/Y. That is only your sample space and may or may not be representative.

You are incorrect. The conditional probability is that this universe exists with life, and this universe is the only one we can measure, therefore this universe (in which we are taking measurements) must exist with the correct attributes for life to exist.

mipeggwrote:
More over if you use that point to indicate there must be a designer then clearly conditions must have been designed precisely so that the designer could be designed, because its quite clear that designers find it substantially easier to design things less complicated than themselves. EG despite our sincerest efforts for many years we've made effectively zero process modelling the brain, yet can easily manufacture substantially less complex things such as computers, ergo it would take a more complex designer, to design a less complex designer, to design the universe.

This sort of logic is a clear and direct failing of religion. Its panicked attempts to claw to the edges of a chasm as it falls into the pit of death, rather than accepting religious scripts for what they are (outdated legal structures used to subdue, tax and control people) we cling to them desperately. People use the 'oh well that bits a 'metaphor'' for anything thats clearly wrong and use this other stupid 'liquid god' idea of just using it to fill in the massive holes in their arguments and try to explain current scientific problems by coating it with 'god'. Occams razor, if your solution adds nothing to knowledge yet has massive assumptions then it is clearly wrong in every way. If only we could stop indoctrinating kids from a young age and spread science and proper education throughout the religious infested 3rd word maybe we could get somewhere.

Just as the less complex ant cannot comprehend the more complex humans, one should not try to make a logical argument about the logic behind a being that is more complex then oneself. An ant dies because you burn it with a magnifying glass and the ant has no concept of photons. Your argument proves nothing.

I won't even tackle that next bit, because it is all opinion. But I would encourage you to do some history research, because those "outdated legal structures" don't function the way you think they do. They also do just as much subduing and controlling as any government anyway (my opinion too).

Again, you are incorrect. There is no argument with the logic of a being more complex than oneself, but a statement that the claims of creationists have no supporting evidence, and uncountable evidence against them.
Even though I think it is silly, faith is not a bad thing. Lots of people feel really happy about their faith. My neighbor believes that humans are descended from alien colonists who built the pyramids, and the evidence for this is that Egyptians could fly. Obviously I disagree. After many discussions, we have concluded that 1) there is no evidence to support her belief, 2) there is lots of evidence against her belief, and 3) it's not hurting anyone for her to believe something she knows is silly, so she's going to keep on doing it.

Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide

mipeggwrote:
Note: I full expect all people who believe in these sorts of ideas to completely ignore my entirely reasonable and well argued point, rarely have I ever seen loonies like that get into arguments short of them slinging mud at one side and the other doing basically nothing back since it would be a total waste of time. It would seem rationality is beyond these people, but I guess its ok cause their imaginary friend told them to do it :rolleyes:

Evidence for this statement is the alien-loving friend I mentioned before

Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide

kreycowrote:
As far as flaws go, THAT is a truly interesting topic. A question that I relish because it has no real answer. Why am I dyslexic? Why do I suck at driving manual? I will say this: even the most brilliantly designed machine is subject to flaws. Computer processors, which should work flawlessly, generate occasional errors. There is something in the world we live in that prevents perfection, and actively works against it. In my opinion, that thing is the opposite of intelligent design - a chaos that fights against the order, if you will.

I don't know why you're dyslexic, but you suck at driving manual because you don't have enough practice. As for the thing that prevents perfection, it's called a changing environment and it's what makes evolution by natural selection an effective mechanism for adaptation. After all, what's perfect in the ocean is lousy in the rainforest, and what's perfect in the rainforest is lousy on the tundra. You should educate yourself about evolution before you hold out against it. If you'd like to refer to my earlier post regarding evidence for Stupid Design, I think it's on page two somewhere. I believe it to be both informative and funny.

kreycowrote:
"The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."

-Steven Hawking

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

Interpreting that as meaning designed is completely missing the point. Its conditional probability, what is the probability of the universe having the correct attributes for live given live exists? Clearly its 1, since live exists. If it were changed then live wouldn't exist and thus we wouldn't be able to measure it thus any universe in which live can exist must be 'fine tuned' for it.

Before making an argument, you should learn the mathematical/statistical concepts before you try to use them. This is a great example of bad statistics. You have one sample, you don't know the number of trials and therefore, cannot make assumptions on the conditional probability of an event. This also applies to the law of large numbers which deals with extremely large numbers of trials. We don't know the number of trials only that one succeeded. Also, this is used for prediction and not hindsight. You can NOT say it happened X out of Y times in the past therefore it's probability is X/Y. That is only your sample space and may or may not be representative.

You are incorrect. The conditional probability is that this universe exists with life, and this universe is the only one we can measure, therefore this universe (in which we are taking measurements) must exist with the correct attributes for life to exist.

mipeggwrote:
More over if you use that point to indicate there must be a designer then clearly conditions must have been designed precisely so that the designer could be designed, because its quite clear that designers find it substantially easier to design things less complicated than themselves. EG despite our sincerest efforts for many years we've made effectively zero process modelling the brain, yet can easily manufacture substantially less complex things such as computers, ergo it would take a more complex designer, to design a less complex designer, to design the universe.

This sort of logic is a clear and direct failing of religion. Its panicked attempts to claw to the edges of a chasm as it falls into the pit of death, rather than accepting religious scripts for what they are (outdated legal structures used to subdue, tax and control people) we cling to them desperately. People use the 'oh well that bits a 'metaphor'' for anything thats clearly wrong and use this other stupid 'liquid god' idea of just using it to fill in the massive holes in their arguments and try to explain current scientific problems by coating it with 'god'. Occams razor, if your solution adds nothing to knowledge yet has massive assumptions then it is clearly wrong in every way. If only we could stop indoctrinating kids from a young age and spread science and proper education throughout the religious infested 3rd word maybe we could get somewhere.

Just as the less complex ant cannot comprehend the more complex humans, one should not try to make a logical argument about the logic behind a being that is more complex then oneself. An ant dies because you burn it with a magnifying glass and the ant has no concept of photons. Your argument proves nothing.

I won't even tackle that next bit, because it is all opinion. But I would encourage you to do some history research, because those "outdated legal structures" don't function the way you think they do. They also do just as much subduing and controlling as any government anyway (my opinion too).

Again, you are incorrect. There is no argument with the logic of a being more complex than oneself, but a statement that the claims of creationists have no supporting evidence, and uncountable evidence against them.
Even though I think it is silly, faith is not a bad thing. Lots of people feel really happy about their faith. My neighbor believes that humans are descended from alien colonists who built the pyramids, and the evidence for this is that Egyptians could fly. Obviously I disagree. After many discussions, we have concluded that 1) there is no evidence to support her belief, 2) there is lots of evidence against her belief, and 3) it's not hurting anyone for her to believe something she knows is silly, so she's going to keep on doing it.

Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide

mipeggwrote:
Note: I full expect all people who believe in these sorts of ideas to completely ignore my entirely reasonable and well argued point, rarely have I ever seen loonies like that get into arguments short of them slinging mud at one side and the other doing basically nothing back since it would be a total waste of time. It would seem rationality is beyond these people, but I guess its ok cause their imaginary friend told them to do it :rolleyes:

Evidence for this statement is the alien-loving friend I mentioned before

Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide

kreycowrote:
As far as flaws go, THAT is a truly interesting topic. A question that I relish because it has no real answer. Why am I dyslexic? Why do I suck at driving manual? I will say this: even the most brilliantly designed machine is subject to flaws. Computer processors, which should work flawlessly, generate occasional errors. There is something in the world we live in that prevents perfection, and actively works against it. In my opinion, that thing is the opposite of intelligent design - a chaos that fights against the order, if you will.

I don't know why you're dyslexic, but you suck at driving manual because you don't have enough practice. As for the thing that prevents perfection, it's called a changing environment and it's what makes evolution by natural selection an effective mechanism for adaptation. After all, what's perfect in the ocean is lousy in the rainforest, and what's perfect in the rainforest is lousy on the tundra. You should educate yourself about evolution before you hold out against it. If you'd like to refer to my earlier post regarding evidence for Stupid Design, I think it's on page two somewhere. I believe it to be both informative and funny.

You don't know how much math I know. And making that assumption is proof of your fallacy. I doubt he's got a PhD in math or statistics. Since that would be the only qualification that would make him "know more" math than me (unlikely, but possible). But even so, I ran his assumptions through a number of my colleagues who do more math on a regular basis than I do, including PhDs. They confirmed what I had said( it don't work, don't do it). Also, the set of conditions you choose to use are so specific it makes it useless. You can take anything and conjure a set of conditions to say anything you want. For example:

The probability that I have a unique name. The conditional probability that the name John Doe is unique given that there is nobody inside the room I'm sitting in named John Doe and that nobody has ever been in this room named John Doe before and won't be again. This must be 1!! I made the conditions so specific and only measurable at one instant, so therefore I must be right. But that would potentially be wrong. And from a statistical standpoint it cannot be used to prove that my name is unique. We know that the name John Doe is not unique. But for the sake of bad statistics I can make that statement. You can't justify your viewpoint by choosing to completely ignore everything that you refuse to admit exists. Also, you're arguing statistics with Steven Hawking (he was the author of the original quote), and he's way the hell outa your league. When he says "finely tuned" in that quote, he's talking about stats/math. Use the opportunity to learn instead!

Perhaps you and your friend should read "How to lie with Statistics". Also learn about "reasonable assumptions", and "metrics". Because, if you can't look at something and see correct flaws, then you shouldn't make the arguments. All I have done is point out the obvious flaws that I see. Someone with a background in psychology would probably come up with something completely different.

As for the logic behind a being that is more complex: you failed to follow the argument. He called that being a "designer" and I simply used the work "being". The premise behind this whole discussion is intelligent design and you can call it what you will (designer, being, entity, force, consciousness etc...). He still uses it as an argument, and I'm saying there is no argument to be made by that logic.

And again, another fallacy. You assume I haven't had practice driving manual. You make so many assumptions and never back them up with anything! Stop doing it, or in the least phrase as a question! I have actually been driving manual for about 8 years now. I have tried multiple things to get better, but it just doesn't really help. Not the best hand/foot coordinator. I'm not the worst out there, but I'm not all that good either. Shifting into 2nd can be choppy if I'm trying to accelerate normally. But I digress. You push your beliefs and assumptions onto my situation. This tendency is the same thing that is preventing people from making great arguments. There should be a point where belief comes in, but people just try to use bad <insert subject here> and assumptions to make their arguments. The problem is, some idiot who doesn't know math might start spouting retardation now, because he read something on the internet. Poor guy.

On a side note... all I did was quote one of the best minds of our time. My OP didn't have a single word of my own.

You're right. I made an assumption based upon your lack of comprehension of conditional probability. From your unique name/room example, you still don't understand it. The difference between a room and a universe is that the one cannot leave the universe or take measurements from space-time areas outside the universe. Mathematically-supported theories have been created that can effectively explain and predict quantum and astronomical phenomena and may extrapolate non-universal properties/events, but without empirical evidence these theories remain speculative. Furthermore, neither I nor Mipegg have been arguing with Dr. Hawking's quote, but your misappropriation of it.

Read the actual words of Dr. Hawking's quote:
"The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."

Note the disclaimer, "as we know them at present". This is a significant phrase inasmuch as it allows for 1) the laws of science to be variable, and 2) the fundamental misunderstanding of laws of science. You have likely been taught that certain "mystical" numbers (like pi) keep popping up as conversion factors in the strangest places, and that the universe can't operate without them. Some people choose to interpret these "magic numbers" as a sort of cryptic divine signature. But there is no evidence that other universes (such as the ones Dr. Hawking has speculated about in his "bubble in a bubble" universe model) operate using these same "magic numbers", or even the same natural laws to which our universe is beholden. In fact, all the empirical evidence measured in this universe that can be extrapolated to non-universal space-time areas (boson, super condensate, etc), indicates that non-universal space-time areas are not beholden to the same natural laws as those in our universe.

So now the nature of conditional probability should be obvious. In other universes (if they exist) that operate using different natural laws, other kinds of matter will form. These other kinds of matter may or may not lead to life, but would definitely not lead to life as it exists here in our universe, so therefore the only place life as we know it may possibly exist is in our own universe. Because life formed (and the forming of life is replicable), then therefore the chance of life forming in our universe is 100%. The chance of life as we know it forming in other universes (beholden to different natural laws) is 0%. The chance of life forming from matter we are unfamiliar with, in universes we don't know exist, is purely speculative.

Also, regarding your driving skills, I express my condolences. Some people need to make up for lack of talent with more practice. If you haven't had enough practice in eight years to master manual driving, then you might want to reevaluate your strategy. Please remember that you're not the only one you endanger when you can't control your vehicle.

After being in several biology classes; evolutionary and comparative, it's likely that DNA just "happened" to occur at one point in our evolutionary history. The helical shape saved space and could be taken apart and duplicated easily. The fact it has different point mutations is a flaw that it has but it also has different ways of trying to fix the problem, unless you're a virus, then it just mutates.